Supreme Court ObamaCare

archer wrote: IMHO, being liberal does not make someone more compassionate. or loving and caring as lionshead put it, I believe that people who are compassionate and loving and caring embrace the liberal philosophy and reject the philosophy of the conservatives. Again, just my opinion.

Also...for those who would take us backwards in time to the last couple of centuries....good luck with that. I believe the American citizens would be reluctant to give up a few hundred years of progress.

The Constitution... a living document.

archer wrote: I believe the American citizens would be reluctant to give up a few hundred years of progress.

60% of Americans are willing to rewind 2 years of Obamacare...

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

archer wrote: IMHO, being liberal does not make someone more compassionate. or loving and caring as lionshead put it, I believe that people who are compassionate and loving and caring embrace the liberal philosophy and reject the philosophy of the conservatives. Again, just my opinion.

Also...for those who would take us backwards in time to the last couple of centuries....good luck with that. I believe the American citizens would be reluctant to give up a few hundred years of progress.

The Constitution... a living document.

Exactly.....that's why we have amendments.

FredHayek wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, thank heavens, the "general welfare" trumps the sociopaths that still think that "Atlas Shrugged"-style "let 'em die" politics is the way we should live.

My contempt for those continues to grow.

The general welfare didn't mean back then what it means now. I didn't see our founding fathers setting up HEW or even pay for George Washington's false teeth. But don't let history stand in the way of your delusions.

Actually you are quite wrong. In 1798 the founding fathers enacted a tax in order to build government hospitals for naval seamen. “For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” establishing the Marine Hospital Service.

Of course, no one then howled about socialized medicine. Speaking of delusions.

Something the Dog Said wrote: No one claimed that I am entitled to the services of someone else without payment to that person, despite your contortions. Instead, I was referring to the ability of the citizens of this great country to require that certain services will be available to all that require it, regardless of their ability to pay for it, despite your fervent desire that those unable to pay be forced to die on the sidewalk outside the emergency room. Luckily, the citizens of this great country do not share your desires and had their representatives enact the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986.

These guys thank you for your generosity...

FRESNO, Calif. -- Two homeless men in Fresno, Calif., have called for an ambulance an average of nearly twice a day for more than a year, racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs and even more when they get to a hospital.

They are Fresno County's highest-volume ambulance users -- "frequent fliers" as they are called in the business -- and their 1,363 combined trips made up 1.34 percent of all American Ambulance calls in the county last year.

A California family will pay $150 per month more in insurance premiums because of cost shifting for ambulance and hospital visits, said Nicole Kasabian Evans, a spokeswoman with the California Association of Health Plans in Sacramento.

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/02/13/homeless-using-ambulance-service-taxi

I wonder if Obamacare includes the taxi rides too? But like Justice Breyer, I don't have time to read the 2,700 page document.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: No one claimed that I am entitled to the services of someone else without payment to that person, despite your contortions. Instead, I was referring to the ability of the citizens of this great country to require that certain services will be available to all that require it, regardless of their ability to pay for it, despite your fervent desire that those unable to pay be forced to die on the sidewalk outside the emergency room. Luckily, the citizens of this great country do not share your desires and had their representatives enact the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986.

These guys thank you for your generosity...

FRESNO, Calif. -- Two homeless men in Fresno, Calif., have called for an ambulance an average of nearly twice a day for more than a year, racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs and even more when they get to a hospital.

They are Fresno County's highest-volume ambulance users -- "frequent fliers" as they are called in the business -- and their 1,363 combined trips made up 1.34 percent of all American Ambulance calls in the county last year.

A California family will pay $150 per month more in insurance premiums because of cost shifting for ambulance and hospital visits, said Nicole Kasabian Evans, a spokeswoman with the California Association of Health Plans in Sacramento.

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/02/13/homeless-using-ambulance-service-taxi

I wonder if Obamacare includes the taxi rides too? But like Justice Breyer, I don't have time to read the 2,700 page document.

There are always a few examples of abuses in any system. However, the Act only requires that procedures for life threatening issues. The paramedics could have refused to transport if they were of the opinion that there was no life threatening issues, and the police can jail them if they are abusing the system for joy rides.

Also, it was Justice Scalia who did not want to read the Health Care reform act. Justice Breyer chided him and told him to make the time.

Something the Dog Said wrote: There are always a few examples of abuses in any system. However, the Act only requires that procedures for life threatening issues. The paramedics could have refused to transport if they were of the opinion that there was no life threatening issues, and the police can jail them if they are abusing the system for joy rides.

Also, it was Justice Scalia who did not want to read the Health Care reform act. Justice Breyer chided him and told him to make the time.

I'm guessing none of the justices have read the whole thing. I wonder if any in Congress read the whole thing?

In oral arguments in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Justice Stephen Breyer “promised” he had not read the entirety of the 2,700-page health-care legislation the court was examining.

He also suggested it would be unreasonable for the lawyers arguing over the constitutionality of the law to expect the justices to “spend a year reading all this” to determine which parts of it should be allowed to stand if the court decides to strike down as unconstitutional the law’s mandate that individuals must buy health insurance.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-breyer-obamacare-i-haven-t-read-every-word-i-promise

Oops, I thought this was CBS News. Hope they quoted him correctly.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: There are always a few examples of abuses in any system. However, the Act only requires that procedures for life threatening issues. The paramedics could have refused to transport if they were of the opinion that there was no life threatening issues, and the police can jail them if they are abusing the system for joy rides.

Also, it was Justice Scalia who did not want to read the Health Care reform act. Justice Breyer chided him and told him to make the time.

I'm guessing none of the justices have read the whole thing. I wonder if any in Congress read the whole thing?

In oral arguments in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Justice Stephen Breyer “promised” he had not read the entirety of the 2,700-page health-care legislation the court was examining.

He also suggested it would be unreasonable for the lawyers arguing over the constitutionality of the law to expect the justices to “spend a year reading all this” to determine which parts of it should be allowed to stand if the court decides to strike down as unconstitutional the law’s mandate that individuals must buy health insurance.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-breyer-obamacare-i-haven-t-read-every-word-i-promise

Oops, I thought this was CBS News. Hope they quoted him correctly.

We were both right, Breyer did make that comment and Scalia did state that it would be cruel and unusual punishment for him to read it. Sorry for the mistake.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, thank heavens, the "general welfare" trumps the sociopaths that still think that "Atlas Shrugged"-style "let 'em die" politics is the way we should live.

My contempt for those continues to grow.

The general welfare didn't mean back then what it means now. I didn't see our founding fathers setting up HEW or even pay for George Washington's false teeth. But don't let history stand in the way of your delusions.

Actually you are quite wrong. In 1798 the founding fathers enacted a tax in order to build government hospitals for naval seamen. “For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” establishing the Marine Hospital Service.

Of course, no one then howled about socialized medicine. Speaking of delusions.

Ever hear of the Merchant Marines Dog? It's a civilian auxiliary of the Navy and has always been subject to the authority of the general government because all authority for trade agreements with foreign nations were delegated to the general government, as was the responsibility to provide and maintain a Navy for the union. That is why trade vessels registered in the United States fly the flag of the United States, even if foreign owned. This is another of the arguments along the lines of the Congress getting to tell the militia how they were to be equipped when called to serve the United States. It was allowed precisely because this was an area where the Constitution actually delegated authority to the Congress directly and no invention of authority through new "interpretations" being applied to the law as written was necessary for Congress to exercise its authority in a proper manner.

Something the Dog Said wrote: I was referring to earlier post by PS where he wanted to get the "government" out of mandating ER care for all regardless of their ability to pay. If hospitals were allowed to give ER care to only those who have insurance or cash in hand, where does that leave those unfortunates who are in dire need for ER care and are turned away from the ER? Luckily for those unfortunates, such compassionate conservatives such as yourself and PS were overruled by the majority of the citizens of this great country.

Of course he was also misleading in claiming that the taxpayers are required to pay for those unable to pay, when in fact those costs are shifted to those who are able to pay since there currently is no individual mandate.

Again you lie. What I advocated was getting the "general government" out of mandating how the state governments chose to care for the individual welfare of their citizens. There were, and remain, charity hospitals who would care for everyone regardless of their ability to pay before the general government stuck its nose under this particular tent. The absence of a general government mandate does not preclude the presence of a state government mandate to the same effect, as your scare tactics wish to suggest. What the absence of a general government mandate would result in, however, is a situation whereby the state governments had the ability to institute their own programs in accordance with the needs of their citizens and tailored to those needs instead of wasting countless dollars that could be used to address the needs of their citizens trying to remain in compliance with a one size fits none federal mandate.

An absence of federal mandates does not mean an absence of compassionate care courtesy of the charity of one's fellow citizens Dog. I know "progressives" like to think that if it weren't for federal government there'd be no government at all, and gloom, despair and agony would reign supreme, but that simply isn't the case.

In the end friends, when it comes to the Supreme Court in particular, it's a question of constitutionality not a question of compassion or logic.

What amazed me is that the left has been schooling the right on this for decades. A right-leaning Congress legislates something the left doesn't like...the left pushes it into the courts...the courts find some aspect of the law unconstitutional...the law is overturned. You guys wrote the book on this. You are cited in the footnotes of the first edition.

So why do you question what's going on now with the healthcare law and it's potential demise at the hands of the high court. This is one of your plays.

Or as Clint Eastwood might say, "compassion's got nothin' to do with it."